Haryana

Sonipat

266/2014

RAM MEHAR SINGH S/O CHHOTU RAM - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFOCER UHBVNL,2. XEN UHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

NARENDER SINGH

12 Jun 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

 

                                Complaint No.266 of 2014

                                Instituted on:01.10.2014

                                Date of order:18.06.2015

 

Ram Mehar Singh son of Chhotu Ram, resident of village Khanpur Kalan, tehsil Gohana,  district Sonepat.

                                                      ...Complainant.

 

                        Versus

 

1.SDO  UHBVN Ltd. Sub Division Gohana, district Sonepat.

2.XEN, UHBVN Ltd. Division Gohana, Sonepat.

                                                      ...Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF       

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh.  Narendedr Balhara Adv. for complainant.

           Sh.  IS Malik, Adv. For respondents.                

 

 

BEFORE     NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

          PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

          D.V. RATHI, MEMBER.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that he is consumer of the respondent vide connection no. KH11-0384.  The electricity meter issued by the respondent no.2 had stopped working before 7.10.1998 due to some internal fault. The respondents asked the complainant to purchase the meter at his own.  The complainant purchased new meter of Bentex Company and has deposited the same with the respondents alongwith testing & meter inspection fees i.e. Rs.30+50 dated 7.10.1998 and after that no formalities was due towards the complainant.  Since then the complainant is making the payment of bills on average basis  which was very higher.  The complainant has never violated any terms and conditions of the respondents.    After waiting for a long period of 10 years,  the complainant appeared before Bijli Sabha Gohana  and made a written application on 26.10.2009 for replacement of the meter and for correction of bills issued on average basis and it was assured that his problems will be solved.  On 15.12.2012, the respondents official came at his premises and took the old defective meter.  After this, the complainant made many requests to the respondents to install the meter, but of no use and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        In reply, the respondents have submitted that the complainant is not their consumer.  The electricity connection no.KH-11/0384 was permanently disconnected on 20.12.2012 vide PDCOI No.18/256 as the complainant was the defaulter in payment of dues to the respondents.  The bills were issued to the complainant regularly on average basis.  The bill of the complainant was corrected on 4.1.2010 and an amount of Rs.7265/- was adjusted in his account. The complainant has not deposited even a single penny after 2.2.2007 and the complainant is chronic defaulter from 2.2.2007. The complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation as there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by the ld. Counsel for both the parties at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

4.        Ld. Counsel for the respondents has argued that  the complainant is not their consumer.  The electricity connection no.KH-11/0384 was permanently disconnected on 20.12.2012 vide PDCOI No.18/256 as the complainant was the defaulter in payment of dues to the respondents.  The bills were issued to the complainant regularly on average basis.  The bill of the complainant was corrected on 4.1.2010 and an amount of Rs.7265/- was adjusted in his account. The complainant has not deposited even a single penny after 2.2.2007 and the complainant is chronic defaulter from 2.2.2007. The complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation as there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

          Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that his old electricity meter became defective and for the replacement of the same, he deposited new electricity meter of Bentex company alongwith testing and meter inspection fee with the respondents on 7.10.1998.  But till date, the said meter was not installed at the premises of the complainant, whereas the respondents kept on issuing the bills to the complainant on average basis.  On 15.12.2012, the respondents official also removed the old meter of the complainant on the pretext that it shall be replaced with the deposited meter by the complainant.   The complainant has requested to the respondents for installation of the meter and for rectification of the bills, but of no use and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

          The complainant has placed on record the document Annexure A  an application (without date)regarding replacement of burnt meter, annexure B guarantee card of Bentex company, Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 application regarding RTI, Ex.C3 covering letter regarding RTI, Ex.C4  information under RTI supplied by the department, Ex.C5 receipt,  Ex.D1 electricity bill dated 24.11.2013,  Ex.D2 electricity bill dated 29.11.1998, Ex.D3 electricity bill dated 27.5.1995, Ex.E application regarding correction of electricity bills, Ex.F application moved by the complainant regarding installation of meter, Ex.G undated application moved by the complainant to SE and XEN UHBVN and Ex.H application dated 6.8.2014 moved by the complainant to the electricity authorities.

          In the present case, as per the complainant, his electricity meter stopped working prior to 7.10.1998.  He moved an application for replacement of the meter before the appropriate authorities, but his meter was not replaced by the respondents.  The complainant deposited the bill from 10/98 to 2007 on average basis without making any protest.  After giving an application in the year 1998, the complainant moved an application again on 9.10.2008 as per document Annexure E.  The complainant remained silent upto 10 years, whereas he was using the electricity energy constantly.  Now the complainant prays as per complaint that he deposited the amount of Rs.500/- as fixed charges.  Now regarding the electricity bills, he want to reduce his bill upto Rs.30/- bimonthly.  But in our view, this plea of the complainant is not tenable in the eyes of law  because as per the written statement and affidavit of the respondents, the account of the complainant was overhauled for the period 4/07 to 12/09 as per sundry dated 4.1.2010.  The respondents also adjusted the amount of Rs.7265/- in the account of the complainant.  The complainant’s electricity meter was removed on 20.12.2012 by the department on the ground of non-payment of electricity bills.

          As per the respondents, the complainant has not deposited the electricity bills from 2.2.2007 to 20.12.2012 whereas he was using the electricity energy constantly.  The respondents have placed on record the affidavit Ex.RW1/A, sundry details dated 4.1.2010 as Ex.R1, consumer ledger Ex.R2, permanent disconnection order as Ex.R3. 

          The perusal of the above documents of the respondents shows that the complainant has not deposited the electricity bills after 2/2/2007, but despite this, the respondents prepared a sundry in the year of 2010 and an amount of Rs.7265/- were adjusted in the account of the complainant and after that also, the complainant has not deposited even a single penny with the respondents regarding the consumption of electricity energy.  In our view, the action taken by the respondents in the matter of the complainant is legal and perfectly justified because the complainant is a chronic defaulter and he himself is liable for his own acts and deeds.  In our view the complainant does not deserve any leniency.

          Ld. Counsel for the complainant to make the things justified has relied upon the case law titled as Ramrakh Vyas Vs. Rajasthan State Electricity, CLT 1995(1) page 457 and  Rajesh Senger Vs. Suresh Kumar, CLT 2000(1) page 323.  But with due regards of the judgments of the Hon’ble Appellate Authorities, we are of the view that the case law on which the ld. Counsel for the complainant is relying upon, are not applicable to the case in hand because the same are on different footings.

          Keeping in view the above observations, findings and directions, we are of the view that the complainant is not entitled to get any kind of relief against the respondents since he himself is liable for his own acts and deeds.  Further the chronic defaulter does not deserve any leniency. Accordingly, we hereby dismiss the present complaint of the complainant with no order as to costs.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)        (DV Rathi)                 (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF        Member DCDRF                   DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced:18.06.2015